Pages

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Pragmatics of Cultural Property

Does the concept of cultural security have practical
significance? Different perspectives
on “cultural security” indicate an evolving theoretical concept. At the same
time, controversies over the politics of repatriation, the financial
value of art, and the security of cultural heritage in regions of conflict have
practical implications.

Politically, nations
with a history of claims for repatriation, such as Greece, created a precedent.
Nations, such as Italy, have followed with success in retrieving objects from
renowned museums in the United States and in the process kicked up political dust. Before the dust settled, nations, such as Turkey, took the
politics of cultural property to the next level by stretching the basis for claims of repatriation. The assertiveness of Turkey's claims raises the
question of an ulterior motive. Is pursuit of the return of cultural patrimony
simply a matter of cultural heritage, or has cultural property taken on a practical role in global power?

Financially, the art
market has captured interest as an alternative investment. However, the
interest has raised concern over the overvaluation of masterworks and
contemporary art. Are a small group of collector-investors bidding up the value
of safe masterworks without regard for the art market, as a whole, or for aspiring
artists? Does the commoditization of art put the cultural value at risk?

In security, what is
the role, or fate,
of cultural property in armed conflict and political violence? UNESCO
conventions for protection have established standards that challenge the
abilities of nations to secure cultural heritage. Syria serves as a topical
example of the challenges of securing cultural property in armed conflict, and the actions of Ansar Dine in Mali poignantly illustrate the
challenges of protecting cultural property from political violence. As states parties to UNESCO conventions, both Syria and Mali bear
responsibility for securing historic structures and religious monuments. However,
the circumstances of the conflicts seem to challenge,
if not make it impossible, to follow the conventions.

Controversies--over
the political exploitation of repatriation, financial exploitation of artworks,
and responsibilities of states parties to conventions--have shifted the protection
of cultural heritage from an altruistic “art for art’s sake” issue to a matter of practical significance. Nations increasingly seem to realize the political advantage of becoming states parties to the conventions. In light of the advantages, what are the motives behind acceptance and to what ends are the conventions being implemented?